Rate this:

Like this:

Related

5 Responses

Thanks for the site. People have more trouble envisioning redevelopement than new development. Since the 1950’s, suburban sprawl has been business as usual. Is it moribund to remind ourselves that part of the pathos of that time was the National Defense Highway Act of 1954 whose purpose was to lessen population density so as to ‘allow for mass evacuation of cities in the event of a nuclear attack’? (www.global security.org) Those poeple who were left behind would indicate an economic Darwinism still active today. Isn’t it ironic that the National Defense Highway System fostered the destruction our own neighborhoods and cities, and along with that our personal sense of connection?

I’m still pretty torn on this. Ideally, I know I would like to see all those streets you mentioned converted to something resembling the 2nd picture, I mean, just imagine people riding bikes on Polaris Pkwy. No one will today in its current state.

Aside from my insistence on focusing inward before outwardly, what would be more practical would be connecting these together in a long-term plan. If the latter is an island unto itself however, that severely limits the practicality of any treatment. As much as I praise the city for what a great example Gay St. is as a complete street, it is an island. Not very walkable once you leave it (mostly due to there not being much to walk to) and certainly intimidating to reach by bike. The bus would be your best alternative to a car, unless you have a scooter in which case you have free parking. By being limited access it does not live up to its potential and I’d bet businesses would be healthier and more numerous if this street becomes easily accessible by multiple modes of transportation.

Another important point: is this not forcing urbanism onto people who don’t want it and chose instead to live in sprawl?

Columbusite,
Personally, I could support your inward focus policy. But I’m not a politician. I don’t have to answer to constituents all over the city like they do. That’s why I don’t think it would ever work.

A plan to do this in an interconnected way would be great. I’m all for it. Nevertheless, I would rather have a bunch of walkable islands than no walkable places at all. It’s like Grandview and the Arena Distrcit. Would it be nice if Goodale or Dublin Road were a dense, mixed-use corridor to connect the two? Sure, but I’m not going to complain that either place exists independently. At least islands can be connected with transit, like you mentioned.

Your last question is an interesting one. First, I’d be interested to see a poll of people to see what kind of a road they would prefer. I have a hard time imagining many people choosing the first picture. Second, people still have to make individual choices. The government can’t force anyone to live in these buildings or open a business in these buildings. If they’re not economically viable, they won’t get built. Third, isn’t the existing zoning code forcing suburbanism on people that want to live in a city? Not everyone lives in the suburbs because they like it. They might do it because it’s close to work or the rent is cheap. Or they might do it because they’re children and they have no choice of their own. They have to live with their parents.

The problem is that the city isn’t serious about connecting these islands through transit. Try going from the Arena District to Grandview by bus or bike. COTA sucks, I tried using it from Harrison West but it blew by the stop and I’m not going to wait 45 minutes for the next one. Unless you’re in the mood for a bit of an adrenaline rush and a good workout, biking isn’t exactly a great option, which is probably why I haven’t crossed the river in over a month.

My main point is that turning streets like Morse and Bethel into islands only serve residents who live right next to them. If they’re the only ones who can conveniently get there without a car (and they can right now, but they don’t do they?) and everyone else needs a car, then almost everyone there will be arriving by car and they’re not going to bother bringing a bike or park and walk everywhere at that point since they brought a car and parking is plentiful and free. Heck, I’m actually tempted to try out those bike lanes on Morse just to make a point…

This is where redevelopment is absolutely crucial (uh-oh, I’m exceeding my main point quota) for such a street to match the transformations on that website. Without urban redevelopment the suburban arterials are not going to really be walkable, bikeable, etc. I don’t see developers clamoring to build such developments if the city is only going to add a bike lane and not reduce the speed limit to at least 30MPH. That has to be done first and only then will developers consider building there. No one in their right mind is going to put a pedestrian-friendly building up against a street with cars going over 50MPH.

Yes, current zoning does force suburbanism, but I’d rather even the playing field. There really are people who think WalMart and Applebees are the best things ever, believe it or not, and if that’s what they want then they’re free to stay far away from me.